Poplar and Limehouse MP Fitzpatrick told the Commons that, while Labour's position was "more honest and open and structured" than the government's motion approving the principle of military action against Syria, it still endorsed the potential use of force.

"In terms of the opposition amendment – it's fair to say it's more honest and open and structured. But, from my reading, it essentially endorses the same principle: 'If we can address certain issues, if certain conditions are met, military action can happen'. I don't believe that it should under any circumstances."

Fitzpatrick, a minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, added: "My objection is not having an exit strategy, not having an end game.

"There have been many contributions during the course of this debate today where colleagues have said 'If we do this, that will happen. If we don't do that, that will happen'.

"There's only one thing which is absolutely guaranteed – nobody knows what's going to happen if we go down the road of military action. We've seen it too often in recent decades. The fact we don't have an exit strategy creates the difficulty I have.

"In conclusion, I have problems both with the government motion and the opposition amendment. I do not believe either is able to achieve the honourable ends that both sides of this House are trying to achieve. I'm opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop.

"To be honest with myself, and consistent on both questions, I will be voting in the No lobby, against the government motion and against the opposition amendment."